Ok, so I have been using lightroom for ages and Aperture since they announced the trial version (just over a week), already I am finding Aperture's workflow and organizing features to be better than those in Lightroom. Also given my relatively modest spec mac (iMac 17" Intel with 1gb ram) I am finding that Aperture is at least as fast as Lightroom if not faster- that suprised me, given the negative press apwerture got on it's speed/

Ok, so I have been using lightroom for ages and Aperture since they announced the trial version (just over a week), already I am finding Aperture's workflow and organizing features to be better than those in Lightroom. Also given my relatively modest spec mac (iMac 17" Intel with 1gb ram) I am finding that Aperture is at least as fast as Lightroom if not faster- that suprised me, given the negative press apwerture got on it's speed/

Having used both, what do you prefer, and why?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84384\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

May be too early to tell. Over at PhotoshopNews there was a picture of the new Beta 5 of LR where they specifically pointed out the new Library folders structure. If it is more akin to Bridge, then that will certainly be an improvement.

In addition, LR has too many ambiguous sliders/controls. This may change in the final release. At least I hope so. Not in the least for the many instructors and/or instruction books and videos. It's one thing to tell people how to do fancy tricks, it's entirely another to tell them a decent procedure to achieve an optimal result. They unfortunately haven't prepondered that procedure (or the entire application for that matter) prior to implementation, and certainly haven't given a completely new or innovative approach to many of the possibilities in RAW conversion. Where's the colorcast slider for example? Or a truly modular develop module? Masks for every module? (idem for Aperture mind you).

It's interesting to see them go back to a folder structure. There's something very re-assuring about the good old OS structure when handling your precious images. And that is my biggest gripe about either application. There should be a clear one-on-one relation in the image management departement. And if you simply replicate all the RAW conversion capabilities as all other offerings and do nothing innovative in that area, then at least build relatively decent DAM capabilities. There is a certain minimum requirement that would help the majority of the users, and Bridge was getting very close to that requirement.

I really look forward to a possible improved Bridge in CS3. As for Aperture and LR (b4), they equally fail in the file management area. Yes, even the A1.5, see if this seems familiar to anyone:

- You import the images from multiple CF cards.

- Clearly you want to rename the files during import and add general keywords. Not a problem in either app. Because of using multiple cameras you might have incoming images with similar numbers but very different time stamps. Not really a problem and you're renaming anyway.

- You select the obvious duds and dispose of them or move them to the trash or a duds folder. In the latter case: is the duds folder replicated in the finder/OS?

- You re-order some of the images in an attempt to make a first preselection. Now the indexing obviously needs to be redone. Is the new naming replicated in the finder/OS?

- You categorize the images, for example in separate folders to end up with chewable chunks. You make another selects round. Again you may want to rename the files by category, but at least change the indexing. Is the new structure replicated in the finder/OS?

- Once you're organised you make your first backup. At this point it would be useful to have some sort of tracking option for back-ups. Aperture already has it, LR will have to follow at some point, i surely hope Bridge will follow as well. The latter apps will have a chance to it better than A, because A screws up everything, including the aforementioned steps for referenced files. It will consolidate the files into a backup, but it will not rebuild any tree structure to the referenced files when rebuilding your system. bad dog...

What's so hard to comprehend about the OS tree structure that it can't be represented in any of these Apps? Bridge seems to do a pretty good job of it! Add some minor backup & tracking options and you have a perfect DAM utility. Sell it separately, or integrate it into LR, but do not, I repeat DO NOT try to do the same thing differently in two places and certainly not half-heartedly in one of them. (Seems a repeating theme come to think of it: remember the ambiguous controls?)

It's beginning to sound like a rant. So here's my vote: they're both equally great Apps... in theory that is.

I agree that they are very similar, but for me I find Aperture that little bit easier.

Obvious areas where it beats Lightroom: Stacks (why has nobody else thought of these?) and Vaults.I know a lot of prolific shooters don't like the integral aproach which Aperture can have (if you import your images) as it can limit you library based on file size. However for many keen amateurs, the idea of a vault is hugely re-assuring.

You can easilly safeguard your images by having multiple vaults. If one drive fails, simply chuck it and replace it with a new one, then copy the images to the new drive in the form of a vault.

Size isn't a problem as my images fit on a modest 160gb HD, but with the costs falling I could get a 500Gb HD for £200. For me at least that will last a long time. Even a 250Gb drive would last.

At the moment I am backing up my images to a HD and CD/DVD, but I shall be implementing the Vaults and managed approach in Aperture. Much simpler and stops you forgetting what needs backing up.

Perhaps I'd feel differently if Lightroom had a version of Vaults and stacks, who knows and maybee, one day it will.

I have completely migrated to Mac from PCs, so I could go with either LR or Aperture --- my problem is that I have choose now, and after I choose, I have a feeling it's going to be hard to unchoose. I like Lightroom, and I think the cross-talk with Photoshop and Bridge might keep it modern. I haven't tried Aperture, because until the new release, a lot of people felt it had problems. My feeling at the moment is that I know where Adobe is going, because it has no choice -- it's an imaging company. Therefore, I think, Lightroom will be kept modern and the versions will be kept compatible. With Apple, as a company, I'm no longer so sure where it's going, especially since it changed to Intel. How many people will use Apple hardware but slowly move to PC software because there's so much more of it? Will the Mac operating system become more of a niche than it is now? And what does that mean for Aperture?

I like the idea of using Mac software because I'm now very comfortable with the way it works. But...

I guess what I would like is for somebody to tell me that the Lightroom/Aperture choice is a toss-up, pick one and be happy because the other one will never be much better. I'm going to have to make a choice soon, but I think I'd be better off if I didn't have to make it for five years.

I have completely migrated to Mac from PCs, so I could go with either LR or Aperture --- my problem is that I have choose now, and after I choose, I have a feeling it's going to be hard to unchoose. I like Lightroom, and I think the cross-talk with Photoshop and Bridge might keep it modern. I haven't tried Aperture, because until the new release, a lot of people felt it had problems. My feeling at the moment is that I know where Adobe is going, because it has no choice -- it's an imaging company. Therefore, I think, Lightroom will be kept modern and the versions will be kept compatible. With Apple, as a company, I'm no longer so sure where it's going, especially since it changed to Intel. How many people will use Apple hardware but slowly move to PC software because there's so much more of it? Will the Mac operating system become more of a niche than it is now? And what does that mean for Aperture?

I like the idea of using Mac software because I'm now very comfortable with the way it works. But...

I guess what I would like is for somebody to tell me that the Lightroom/Aperture choice is a toss-up, pick one and be happy because the other one will never be much better. I'm going to have to make a choice soon, but I think I'd be better off if I didn't have to make it for five years.

JC[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84616\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi John,

you could download and try both, as they are both available to try for free (Lightroom is a Beta, and Aperture has a 30 Day trial).

However I understand that you may not want to go through the process of learning both. Apple has a number of mini movies about Aperture, so you could watch those and see if it is for you.

From an ideas point of view they are very similar, but, as I have said before, I personally prefer Aperture.I am not sure why you would be concerned about the future of Aperture, Joe Schorr has already said that Apple expect Aperture to become their most used pro app (from the podcast on Inside Aperture), if this is indeed true, why would they cut and run and let the product die.

I suspect that as each version gets better (and it does) that more and more people will use it. I know I will continue to do so.

Lastly, Aperture can, at the moment, do things that Lightroom cannot. Such as make use of stacks, create books, and can also support images larger than 10000px in lenght. This may be important for you, if like me, you shoot and stitch images together to make large panoramics.

Ultimately it's down to personal prefernece, as neither program is bad. I would strongly advise you to download Aperture and give it a try. If you don't want to commit to it fully, then you could only import a few photos, and play around with them.

I like some things about Lightroom but Aperture is the best for management and backup of Digital Photo files. The Lightroom UI is better and I like the split proccessing capabilities (does Aperture have anything like that?). I also like how easy it is to save a preset in Lightroom (again the UI).

Aperture is EXACTLY what I have been looking for as far as making it easy to manage and proccess files from ONE program! I hate to say it but I have so many (iView Media Pro, Adobe Bridge, Captur One Pro you get the idea) but I was looking for one easy to use solution that would make it easy to be organized and save disc space. I had soo many duplicate files on my HD's and it drove me crazy. Having ONE place to do it all is helping a great deal with this. The only problem now is I still like the other programs at times for specific reasons. I figure I will keep it all under control with Aperture and just export a version or master for very specific circumstances. For example I have found that Capture One Pro did a much better job of saving a baddly exposed shot than Aperture could (probably a shot that some purists wouldn't save anyways but they sometimes still work depending on what your needs are). Yes I know I need to take better shots in the first place. I try but sometimes you just screw it up. Anyways in these specific circumstances I plan on returning the shot to Aperture to be managed right after the special processing is complete.

A few things I like other programs for:- As I said Capture One Pro can save a baddly exposed shot better.- Lightrooms Split Processing and some other color related effects I like with Lightroom.- Photoshop with Alien Skins Exposure for B&W.

Is there a way to regroup these outer processed shots with thier Master files when bringing them back into Aperture other than Photoshoped ones which you can if you just save them in the same format and file name ( Save instead of Save As)?

I may still use iView Media to manage my graphic design projects and other types of graphic files as it handles almost all file types.

interesting. I am evaluation a photo-management software right now and tested some programs already. I think iview and imatch are quite powerful for managing. Since I don't have a MAC (yet), I was unable to test aperture, and looking at its description, I guess I did not really get THE benefit of it.Therefore would be interested, if some of you changed from management-software (like iView) to workflow-tools (like Aperture,Lightroom)?And does anyboby use both types parallel`?

interesting. I am evaluation a photo-management software right now and tested some programs already. I think iview and imatch are quite powerful for managing. Since I don't have a MAC (yet), I was unable to test aperture, and looking at its description, I guess I did not really get THE benefit of it.Therefore would be interested, if some of you changed from management-software (like iView) to workflow-tools (like Aperture,Lightroom)?And does anyboby use both types parallel`?

Well I think one of the biggest thing is being able to do it all in one place. It takes care of all of it for you. It is much quicker to be in one environment than jumping from this app to that app and trying to keep your train of thought and go from one interface to another. In Apperture you can: Import with Metadata input (keywords), Select or edit if you will, Process your picks to include patching dust spots, Open in external editor (Photoshop) to do pixel editing and save with the edited file updating in Aperture so it stays one file which would be a version of the Master file, and finally Backup all your work if you use Apertures Library and Vault system. It all stays in one place and stays managed. One environment with one external editor for pixel editing.

Its about integration which is why companies like Adobe and what use to be Macromedia are/were trying more and more to integrate their Apps together so everything flows smoothly.

Before Aperture I would always have a million copies of the same files floating around because I wasn't sure if I had that version somewhere else so I would save it again, even though I tried to be organized. I am a graphic designer so for me it's not just keeping track of photo files but also all of my other graphics files and where and how I use my photo files, so any help I can get simplifing things is great. I would end up saving files multiple times because to loose a version of a file could mean hours of editing work if it is used for a graphic design project that requires a lot of Photoshop alterations. I think I still have to save anything other than .tif, .jpg outside of Aperture. In other words .psd or Photoshop files, if I am wrong about this someone let me know, but it is a lot easier to keep track of just Photoshop files with all others being taken care of in Aperture.

I think I still have to save anything other than .tif, .jpg outside of Aperture. In other words .psd or Photoshop files, if I am wrong about this someone let me know, but it is a lot easier to keep track of just Photoshop files with all others being taken care of in Aperture.

Actually, you can save your .psd files into Aperture as well. Just save them with Compatible checked, then Aperture can view them and render jpegs, etc. from them.

Actually, you can save your .psd files into Aperture as well. Just save them with Compatible checked, then Aperture can view them and render jpegs, etc. from them.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87766\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I was wondering what it is that you see as lacking in Aperture conversions? I have done several comparisons between Rawshooters(on PC), ACR(which I assume to be the same as Lightroom), and Aperture. I am sure I haven't done as exhaustive tests as you(or as well trained an eye), but I didn't find there to be a clear winner between ACR and Aperture. I felt, in the tests I did anyway, that there was no clear advantage to either?When it comes to RAw converters, it seems almost as much a matter of personal taste as anything nowadays.I would be interested in hearing your views on this.

I was wondering what it is that you see as lacking in Aperture conversions? I have done several comparisons between Rawshooters(on PC), ACR(which I assume to be the same as Lightroom), and Aperture. I am sure I haven't done as exhaustive tests as you(or as well trained an eye), but I didn't find there to be a clear winner between ACR and Aperture. I felt, in the tests I did anyway, that there was no clear advantage to either?When it comes to RAw converters, it seems almost as much a matter of personal taste as anything nowadays.I would be interested in hearing your views on this.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88693\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think you hit the nail on the head: personal taste. I guess I am more familiar with what C1 and ACR conversions look like, as well as feel comfortable with. When I compare ACR to C1, I do like the C1 'look' much better, especially with deep reds. Other than my images from Namibia with red sand dunes, I hardly ever push my red channel to a point where I notice the difference. Just personal taste.

Damn you, Andy! Now I've just set up an exhibit, and then you point me at your pictures making me feel like the rookie I really am:) Beautiful. Actually, I was looking for that blog posting, but it seems gone.

Going back to the original topic!!?? I have decided to go with Lightroom, not Aperture. Why? Aperture is probably the better programme in it's current incarnation but .... I am not rich. I would need to buy a bigger, better, newer computer with a much bigger screen to really benefit from it. It does run on my G4 Powerbook but it's not designed for it. Lightroom wizzes along on my machine, plus it is easier to use anyway. The money I save only upgrading my computer occassionally can go to upgrading my camera/lenses instead!

If it's file management you want, then it's Aperture, if it's keeping track of various clients and who's had what it's Aperture, if it's making several versions of one image i.e. various crops colour and B&W conversions then it's Aperture, if it's easy back-up to other drives then it's Aperture, if you need to send low res watermarked images for approval it's Aperture, if you then need to send a high res exactly the same crop/adjustments etc as the low res it's Aperture, if you want to use dual monitors one for selecting and sorting and one for full screen viewing it's Aperture. If you don't need any of that then pick one from the rest.It's worth buying a Mac to run Aperture.

If it's file management you want, then it's Aperture, if it's keeping track of various clients and who's had what it's Aperture, if it's making several versions of one image i.e. various crops colour and B&W conversions then it's Aperture, if it's easy back-up to other drives then it's Aperture, if you need to send low res watermarked images for approval it's Aperture, if you then need to send a high res exactly the same crop/adjustments etc as the low res it's Aperture, if you want to use dual monitors one for selecting and sorting and one for full screen viewing it's Aperture. If you don't need any of that then pick one from the rest.It's worth buying a Mac to run Aperture.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100041\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I would have to agree completely as well. I have to say that Aperture is just superb! That was a nice summary of the more important features for some workflows. My only complaint is lack of RAW support for the Pentax K10D but I am sure Apple is working on it.